| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and clustered indices |
| Date: | 2005-11-18 18:06:46 |
| Message-ID: | 437DC3D60200002500000844@gwmta.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
That sounds very much like a CLUSTERED INDEX under Sybase ASE
(or the derivative Microsoft SQL Server). In those products, when you
create a clustered index, the data pages are sorted according to the
index sequence, and are used as the leaf pages in the index. A
clustered index does not have another leaf level.
>>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> >>>
As an aside, Index Organized Tables (IOTs) isn't just an Oracle term.
They first used the term, but the concept had already been implemented
in both Tandem (value-ordered) and Teradata (hash-ordered) before this,
as well as numerous OLAP systems. The concept doesn't look to be
patented.
If anybody is looking for a justification for IOTs, the reduction in
table volume for large tables is very high. IOTs are the equivalent of
removing all of the leaf blocks of the clustered index.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2005-11-18 18:14:54 | order by, for custom types |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-11-18 18:05:33 | Re: Improving count(*) |